Given the number of victories in obtaining Cancellation of Removal in the Immigration Courts as well as Reeves & Associates history of success in Cancellation cases, it should be known that Cancellation of Removal is still available as an affirmative remedy to those who are qualified. As you are probably well aware, the end result of a victorious Cancellation case is lawful permanent residence in the United States.
As set forth in Section 240(A)(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a person is qualified for Cancellation of Removal if s/he has been physically present in the United States for at least ten years preceding the date of the Application for Cancellation of Removal, has been a person of good moral character during such period, and has not been convicted of certain crimes. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly, one must establish to the satisfaction of Attorney General Janet Reno, that removal (deportation) of the applicant would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the applicant’s spouse, parent, or child, who is either a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United States. The spouse, parent of child who is either a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident is commonly referred to as a “qualifying relative.”
If one is statutorily eligible for Cancellation of Removal, cases are won and lost on establishing exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. All too often, an applicant’s prior immigration attorney handles a variety of matters outside of the field of immigration law and is incapable of devoting his or her undivided attention to the careful analysis and creation of a theory of the case to establish the exacting standard of hardship needed to satisfy the Attorney General. Here at Reeves and Associates, the deportation department of the firm is dedicated to the trying of Cancellation of Removal Cases. The following is a brief summary of several of our recent Cancellation victories before the Immigration Court in the month of May, 2000. Understandably, the names of our clients have been omitted from the summaries out of respect for our clients’ right to privacy.
One of our most recent victories involved a young married couple from the Philippines. The husband had entered the United States approximately fifteen (15) years ago, while the wife had been here for eleven years. Both the husband and wife were church going persons of good moral character who had both worked and paid their taxes; neither had been convicted of a crime. The “qualifying relatives” in this matter were the husband’s sixty-four-year-old lawful permanent resident father, as well as a two year old United States citizen child. One of the Applicant’s mother has long since been deceased and was buried in the greater Los Angeles area. The Honorable Bruce Ipema, former judge on the Board of Immigration Appeals, and now Immigration Judge at the Los Angeles Immigration Court, granted both the husband and wife’s Applications for Cancellation of Removal, for to remove them from the United States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the applicant’s father since, among other things, he was extremely dependent upon his children to take him to the grave site of his wife.
In yet another case, a married couple found themselves in immigration proceedings and applied for Cancellation of Removal; the couple had been in the United States for fourteen years and were otherwise eligible for Cancellation of Removal proceedings. The Applicant’s qualifying relatives were a twelve year old United States citizen daughter who was very active in school and in extra curricular activities as well as an aging legal permanent resident mother who has minor health problems associated with age such as hypertension and high blood pressure. Our decision to highlight the hardship to the twelve year old daughter while merely touching upon the hardship to the legal permanent resident mother appealed to the sensitivities of an immigration judge known for his toughness; consequently the applicants were granted and both the husband and wife are now lawful permanent residents of the United States.
Although the above mentioned case summaries may resemble your present situation, please be advised that every case is different and is in need of careful analysis to determine whether of not one is qualified for Cancellation of Removal. Even if qualified, since Cancellation is a discretionary grant, the next line of inquiry must be whether or not one is deserving of being afforded the status of lawful permanent residence.
The decision to appear before an immigration judge is a serious one indeed. Your ability to appear before the Immigration Court and apply for Cancellation of Removal is neither as difficult nor problematic as your finding competent attorneys who are able to adequately prepare for and present your case to the Court. In making one of the more, if not the most, important decision of you and your family’s life, please make sure that you are competently guided and represented throughout the process.
